Replies

I remember when the feminists were trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. Opponents claimed that the ERA would open the door to recognition of gay marriages. Proponents said that was ridiculous, that no court would ever construe it that broadly.

It turns out that some courts didn't even need the ERA to "find" a constitutional right to gay marriage.

Every man has an equal right to marry a woman. Every woman has an equal right to marry a man. No man has a right to marry another man. No woman has a right to marry another woman. That is where the equal rights analysis should end.

"Every man has an equal right to marry a woman. Every woman has an equal right to marry a man. No man has a right to marry another man. No woman has a right to marry another woman. That is where the equal rights analysis should end."

Of course, a few decades ago, the argument was as follows:

"Every white man has an equal right to marry a white woman. Every black man has an equal right to marry a black woman. No white man has a right to marry a black woman. No black woman has a right to marry a white man. That is where the equal rights analysis should end."

After all, marriage has had only ONE definition throughout the millenia [as I believe another poster said], and has NEVER changed, and has been viewed equally in all societies and all cultures, right? (Quick question: if marriage has never changed, are wives still the property of the husband? As a bachelor, I'm not up to date with the current legal details in that area.)